This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
In 2001, the Defendant unlawfully entered the homes of three women aged 94, 59, and 72, committing multiple crimes, including criminal sexual penetration, kidnapping, aggravated burglary, and aggravated battery. DNA evidence linked the Defendant to the crimes, and a DNA expert testified at trial. The Defendant was charged with 39 criminal counts, and the trials were severed for each victim.
Procedural History
- District Court, Bernalillo County: The Defendant was convicted of multiple counts, including criminal sexual penetration, kidnapping, and aggravated burglary. The court vacated several counts as subsumed within others and sentenced the Defendant to 220 years, less 7 days.
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that (1) the district court erred in admitting statistical DNA testimony due to lack of foundation and its prejudicial nature; (2) the elderly enhancement statute was improperly applied as it was repealed before the Defendant was charged; and (3) there was insufficient evidence to sustain the conviction for attempted criminal sexual penetration (Count 25).
- State-Appellee: Contended that (1) the DNA testimony was properly admitted as it met the reliability standard under New Mexico law; (2) the elderly enhancement statute was applicable as it was in effect at the time of the offenses; and (3) sufficient evidence supported the conviction for attempted criminal sexual penetration.
Legal Issues
- Was the admission of statistical DNA testimony at trial proper?
- Did the district court err in applying the elderly enhancement statute to the Defendant’s crimes?
- Was there sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction for attempted criminal sexual penetration (Count 25)?
Disposition
- The court affirmed the admission of DNA testimony.
- The court upheld the application of the elderly enhancement statute.
- The court reversed and vacated the conviction for attempted criminal sexual penetration (Count 25).
Reasons
Per Garcia J. (Kennedy and Robles JJ. concurring):
Admission of DNA Testimony: The court found no abuse of discretion in admitting the DNA evidence. New Mexico law recognizes the reliability of DNA testing, and the Defendant failed to provide supporting authority for his objections. The court emphasized that the district court properly exercised its discretion in determining the probative value of the evidence outweighed any prejudicial impact.
Elderly Enhancement Statute: The court held that the elderly enhancement statute, though repealed in 2003, was applicable because it was in effect at the time the offenses were committed. The court relied on precedent affirming that the law in effect at the time of the crime governs sentencing. The statute required factual findings by the jury, which were made in this case, and the repeal did not exempt the Defendant from prosecution under the statute.
Attempted Criminal Sexual Penetration (Count 25): The court determined there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction. While the Defendant expressed intent to commit anal intercourse, he did not take an overt act beyond mere verbal statements. The court distinguished this case from precedent where overt acts were clearly tied to the attempted crime. The Defendant’s other criminal acts were not sufficient to establish an overt act for this specific charge.